This blog post is making the rounds. It’s hit me from a couple of places. The author took longer with it than I would have, so I’m glad he wrote it. Maybe I’ll figure out how to resonate with the populace to such a degree one day.
God be with friends and family of those lost in the murderous terrorist attacks in Paris.
A sensible foreign policy speaks to both the United States’ role in the world and its border security (which are really two sides of the same thing). The bottom line is that there is going to be a biggest kid on the block. Recorded history bears this out. Either there is an unambiguous strongest power, or widespread war.
Can you name a period to the contrary?
If I may twist a well-known axiom about politics: you may not be interested in foreign relations, but foreign relations are interested in you. It is dangerous and naive to think that minimizing American influence in the world is desirable. There are two big reasons:
- All countries do not share our world view. For the United States to desire mutually beneficial trade relationships and no “meddling” in others’ affairs sounds great—until you consider that there are a great many people in the world still interested in taking by force, if they think they can get away with it.
“I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.” – Margaret Thatcher
Lasting peace tends to result from complete surrender of the vanquished, and nothing short of it.
- The biggest kid on the block promulgates values more effectively than any other. Fashionable to hate on the U.S., but as bad a beating as personal liberty has taken, where does it still have the best chance in the world? The United States influencing is better than any other country in the world influencing. Do you disagree?
No, I’m not the least bit interested in declaring war on Islam at large. I know too many adherents who are good people.
But I am interested in a president—in a world—unafraid to state the obvious fact that terrorist acts are overwhelmingly committed by radical Islamic fundamentalists. I am interested in a president—in a world—unafraid to point out that even standard grade school curricula in Saudi Arabia contain appalling hatred and intolerance, inconsistent with civilized society.
I am interested in a president—in a world—who shall name the enemy, fearlessly, and defeat it.
You might also like:
- Costs of rejecting American exceptionalism, in Crimea and beyond
“No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.” – Barack Obama, September 23, 2009 I w… - “The American people will come first once again.” – Donald Trump
I didn’t watch a single minute of the Republican convention, which means I didn’t see or hear any of… - Blogging about inanities as the world crumbles
My friend Carol recently expressed frustration that we’re all running around babbling about stars’ n… - Ron Paul’s foreign policy assumes parity that isn’t there
As much as I like Ron Paul, the two of us are never more out of step than when he tries to justify h… - There is no moral ambiguity in Israel
As I type, the latest armed conflict in Israel is one month old. That ostensibly intelligent people …